Yates v

State, 248 Ga. App. 35, 545 S.E.2d 169, 2001 Ga. App. LEXIS 165 (2001) (decided under former O.C.G.A. § 24-9-103). Non hearing impaired defendant’s equal protection argument failed when the defendant could not meet the defendant’s burden to show that former O.C.G.A. § 24-9-103 was arbitrary or otherwise not rationally related to a legitimate state interest. Sisson v. State, 232 Ga. App. 61, 499 S.E.2d 422, 1998 Ga. App. LEXIS 574 (1998), overruled in part, State v. Turnquest, 305 Ga. 758, 827 S.E.2d 865, 2019 Ga. LEXIS 320 (2019) (decided under former O.C.G.A. § 24-9103). Failing to object to presence of interpreters. — With regard to two defendants’ convictions for murder, the defendants failed to show that the defendants received ineffective assistance of counsel based on the defendants’ respective trial counsel failing to object to the presence of two sign language interpreters in the jury room as the trial court had the two interpreters take an oath swearing that, during jury deliberations, the interpreters would merely interpret and not interject the interpreters’ personal opinions, conclusions, or comments. The defendants failed to present a shred of evidence that the interpreters did anything other than comply fully with the oath taken and that trial counsel had any reasons to suspect the interpreters did otherwise. Smith v. State, 284 Ga. 599, 669 S.E.2d 98, 2008 Ga. LEXIS 866 (2008) (decided under former O.C.G.A. § 24-9-103). Impact of failure to comply with procedure. — When the arresting officer failed to comply with the procedure in former O.C.G.A. § 24-9-103, such failure 657 rendered blood test results inadmissible. State v. Woody, 215 Ga. App. 448, 449 S.E.2d 615, 1994 Ga. App. LEXIS 1270 (1994), cert. denied, No. S95C0487, 1995 Ga. LEXIS 480 (Ga. Feb. 24, 1995) (decided under former O.C.G.A. § 24-9-103). Application to Spanish speaking people. — Defendant’s constitutional claims to the implied consent statutes were without merit since defendant, a Spanish speaking person, was not similarly situated to a hearing impaired person and, although similarly situated to an English-speaking person, there was a rational basis for requiring the implied consent warnings to be read in English. Rodriguez v. State, 275 Ga. 283, 565 S.E.2d 458, 2002 Ga. LEXIS 526, cert. denied, Rodriguez v. Georgia, 537 U.S. 1046, 123 S. Ct. 624, 154 L. Ed. 2d 519, 2002 U.S. 24-6-654 LEXIS 8717 (2002) (decided under former O.C.G.A. § 24-9-103). Waiver. — Trial court did not err by admitting into evidence a statement defendant gave after the defendant had been arrested and was in custody because the interpreter’s involvement in the interview was harmless as the defendant waived the requirements of O.C.G.A. § 24-6-653 when the defendant and counsel required the follow-up meeting, the written statement the defendant gave was not translated by the interpreter, both the defendant and counsel clearly stated that the defendant wanted to give the statement, and it was plain from the video recording that the statement was freely and voluntarily made. Harris v. State, 307 Ga. 657, 837 S.E.2d 777, 2020 Ga. LEXIS 4 (2020). 24-6-654. Indigent hearing impaired defendants to be provided with interpreters. (a) A court shall provide a court qualified interpreter to any hearing impaired person whenever the hearing impaired person has been provided with a public defender or court appointed legal counsel. (b) The court qualified interpreter authorized by this Code section shall be present at all times when the hearing impaired person is consulting with legal counsel. History. Code 1981, § 24-6-654, enacted by Ga. L. 2011, p. 99, § 2/HB 24.